Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT held that the customs broker (Appellant-CHA) could not be penalized under s.112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 for alleged abetment of illegal import of green and white peas. The Appellant-CHA had duly filed the Bill of Entry with all requisite documents, which were examined and accepted by Customs, and out-of-charge was granted. The subsequent interception of vehicles by SSB and detection of discrepancies during transit could not be attributed to the CHA, whose role is limited to filing documents and facilitating clearance under CBLR, 2018. No evidence of connivance or knowledge of concealment by the CHA was found. CESTAT set aside the penalty and allowed the appeal in full.
CESTAT held that the customs broker (Appellant-CHA) could not be penalized under s.112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 for alleged abetment of illegal import of green and white peas. The Appellant-CHA had duly filed the Bill of Entry with all requisite documents, which were examined and accepted by Customs, and out-of-charge was granted. The subsequent interception of vehicles by SSB and detection of discrepancies during transit could not be attributed to the CHA, whose role is limited to filing documents and facilitating clearance under CBLR, 2018. No evidence of connivance or knowledge of concealment by the CHA was found. CESTAT set aside the penalty and allowed the appeal in full.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.